IQ (moved subtopic)
^^Hey Luciom, can you remind me again how smart JD Vance is? Above, same, or below the average MAGA chode?
I have no problem with schools using affirmative action to help people like Vance with humble backgrounds.... but maybe not in law school where these idiots start becoming dangerous. And they got to find smarter people then Vance or the whole thing just looks ridiculous and all you're doing is de-valuing your own department.
I’m no utilitarian, but I believe that under utilitarianism their suffering would be considered important and morally bad in a vacuum, but weighed against the event space they might go forward with the war if it would prevent a larger amount of suffering or cause a significant amount of utility for those involved.
And really it’s more a criticism under Kantian deontology, which does not allow for any consideration as to the potential effects of doing the right thing, you are dutifully
I only know about Kant from secondary sources and handful of quotes, and in my experience with philosophy, that can be very misleading, but you are echoing something I read about him. Kant basically says that it's wrong to lie under any circumstance, right? Because people make decisions based on their knowledge, and when you lie to them, you put them into a position where they have to make decisions based on false knowledge? So, essentially, under Kantian deontology, if a bank robber asks a teller if they pressed the silent arm, the teller should tell them the truth because the bank robber can't make an informed decision on what to do unless they know whether or not the alarm was sounded?
To the first part of your comment, I think it's subjective. Some people will be able to justify certain actions while others will not. Have you seen Martin Scorsese's Silence? I've never seen a movie struggle so well with that dilemma.
I’m no utilitarian, but I believe that under utilitarianism their suffering would be considered important and morally bad in a vacuum, but weighed against the event space they might go forward with the war if it would prevent a larger amount of suffering or cause a significant amount of utility for those involved.
The key word is "their." And what kind of suffering are we talking about?
I only know about Kant from secondary sources and handful of quotes, and in my experience with philosophy, that can be very misleading, but you are echoing something I read about him. Kant basically says that it's wrong to lie under any circumstance, right? Because people make decisions based on their knowledge, and when you lie to them, you put them into a position where they have to make decisions based on false knowledge? So, essentially, under Kantian deontology, if a bank robber asks a tell
Yes, and actually he said even if a murderer asks if your friend is in your house and you say no, you are morally responsible if by saying no and your friend slipped out the house, you should
be punished for the lie as you have moral culpability for whatever the lie might cause.
http://www.sophia-project.org/uploads/1/...
To be fair, most deontologists are not strict kantians. And maybe we can find other faults in his categorical imperative that would rend this point moot.
To the first part of your comment, I think it's subjective. Some people will be able to justify certain actions while others will not. Have you seen Martin Scorsese's Silence? I've never seen a movie struggle so well with that dilemma.
Never seen that movie, but yeah, I think morality is subjective and I’m fine with that.
I only did a litle bit of kant and i'm sure kantians deal with some of the obvious objections.
I have no problem with lying always being bad. So is aiding a murder. Sometimes not lying will aid a murder. I choose the least bad path (lessor of two evils). I take moral resposibility for it.
I only did a litle bit of kant and i'm sure kantians deal with some of the obvious objections.
I have no problem with lying always being bad. So is aiding a murder. Sometimes not lying will aid a murder. I choose the least bad path (lessor of two evils). I take moral resposibility for it.
Lying always being bad is so insanely not justified I don't know who can hold that view morally.
Murder is unlawful homicide so you can have a moral that prescribes all illegal actions as immoral, if laws are written properly.
but lying to prevent a murder is clearly not immoral jfc under the vast majority of moral systems, if under Nazi torture you give false locations for your friends in hiding so that the Nazi waste time there and your friends maybe can save themselves that isn't a "lesser evil", that's a moral act!
Agreed. What point are you trying to make? My comments weren't about whether or not we have free will.
"they know they should stop but they can't" is basic denial of free will.
they decide not to stop even if the consequences are very bad for them (and so you aren't "exploiting" then if you play against them) is accepting free will exists
I've no problem with the idea that doing something bad can be moral.
Maybe a good moral system is one where the dilemma is rare and usually found in extreme hypothetical.
I disagree
I didn't say they can't stop. I said they can't change their belief about whether or not they should stop.
they decide not to stop even if the consequences are very bad for them ... is accepting free will exists
I accept/believe that free will exists. It's more complicated than that, but largely, yeah, I think we have it.
Lying always being bad is so insanely not justified I don't know who can hold that view morally.
Murder is unlawful homicide so you can have a moral that prescribes all illegal actions as immoral, if laws are written properly.
but lying to prevent a murder is clearly not immoral jfc under the vast majority of moral systems, if under Nazi torture you give false locations for your friends in hiding so that the Nazi waste time there and your friends maybe can save themselves that isn't a "lesser evi
I just do a sort of threshold deontology instead. I think lying is always bad, unless lying would have such a positive outcome that it becomes a moral obligation to lie in that moment.
That threshold is hard to define, but I think to stop a murderer would be pretty clearly above that threshold.
I only did a litle bit of kant and i'm sure kantians deal with some of the obvious objections.
I have no problem with lying always being bad. So is aiding a murder. Sometimes not lying will aid a murder. I choose the least bad path (lessor of two evils). I take moral resposibility for it.
Why value not lying above aiding in murder? Is there no wiggle room?
20 ants are placed on a metre stick as follows:
- To the left of the 50cm mark, the ants are spread linearly every 10 centimetres (0,10,20,30,40)
- To the right of the 50cm mark, the ants are concentrated towards the centre as follows (55,60,75,85,100)
At time 0 all the ants start walking towards the 50cm mark. They walk at 1mm/second. Every time an ant collides with another ant, both reverse directions and continue walking at the same speed as before. Collisions take 0 seconds, and the ants are dimensionless. Once an ant reaches the end of the stick, it falls off.
How many seconds before all the ants have fallen off the stick?
Sklansky, if you don't know this one, you'll appreciate it once you figure out the solution, for reasons which will become clear.
69 seconds
I'd lie.
The point was really a question to Kantians. How does kant prevent different catagories from confllciting e.g
Always wrong to lie
Always wrong to aid a murder
and if kant doesn't prevent it then does it create some new meta-catagory for situations where catagories coinflict or what?
I just do a sort of threshold deontology instead. I think lying is always bad, unless lying would have such a positive outcome that it becomes a moral obligation to lie in that moment.
That threshold is hard to define, but I think to stop a murderer would be pretty clearly above that threshold.
I do deontology as well. Lying with bad intentions is always wrong, lying to achieve good things is never inherently wrong.
Lying is almost neutral, only very slightly puts me at unease per SE.
Lying is just not something that has a significant moral connotation per SE for me.
I'd lie.
The point was really a question to Kantians. How does kant prevent different catagories from confllciting e.g
Always wrong to lie
Always wrong to aid a murder
and if kant doesn't prevent it then does it create some new meta-catagory for situations where catagories coinflict or what?
Got it. I misread that comment and also didn't see your last response to Luciom.
No, Craig.
The ability to impose your will on reality is called “power”, and to demonstrate this, I’m going to give you a day off for that very over the top and unnecessary personal dig at d2.
Power is associated with force. Intelligence associates itself with truth, even if the truth occupies a position of powerlessness.
There is a progression for the self. First, there’s social conditioning through the social conscience. Next, the social conscience is transcended for freedom. Finally, freedom must be sacrificed for slavery.
When Jesus said you cannot serve two masters, using slave language, he wasn’t making an outdated reference or using an analogy. He was describing reality precisely.
Going back, for the anti slavery, modern liberal Rationalist to claim they are more intelligent than those in the past who participated in slavery - it’s not so simple. None of you are more intelligent than Jesus, and he wasn’t exactly anti slavery.
What IQ measures for (logic, reason, memory) are correlated with intelligence but they are not what intelligence is. Intelligence is what I said: the ability to actualize the fulfillment of a desire.
The current education system transmits knowledge and sorts by IQ, but it doesn’t teach young people how to increase intelligence. This cannot sustain.
20 ants are placed on a metre stick as follows:
- To the left of the 50cm mark, the ants are spread linearly every 10 centimetres (0,10,20,30,40)
- To the right of the 50cm mark, the ants are concentrated towards the centre as follows (55,60,75,85,100)
At time 0 all the ants start walking towards the 50cm mark. They walk at 1mm/second. Every time an ant collides with another ant, both reverse directions and continue walking at the same speed as before. Collisions take 0 seconds, and the ants are d
I didn't know it but if I understood it correctly all one must do is realize that the answer remains the same as it would if the ants walked on top of or under each other and continued on their way. So yes, I appreciate this question as another one of many examples of questions where "all one must do is realize...."
just submerge the stick, ez game
